Today’s postings will focus on some thoughts from Women, and it addresses the problem with Testosterone! As we know, that is what seems to drive a lot of male violence. Some women do have solutions…some men and boys voluntarily want to be submissive and feminine, but what to do with the violent males??
Date Posted: 10:49:57 04/29/16 Fri
Boys begin to develop their contempt for the opposite sex at an early age. Certain aspects of this process have been documented in “Boys and Girls: Superheroes in the Doll Corner” by Vivian Gussin Paley, a vivid account of relations between the sexes in one kindergarten class.
Kindergarten, it turns out, is a crucial time in which the boys separate themselves from the girls and define themselves as the opposite of female. The mother of Charlotte, one of the girls in the class, tells Paley: “They used to play so nicely in the doll corner, in nursery school, the boys and girls together. Now Charlotte tells me the boys are always fighting.”
Paley herself observes: “Like Charlotte’s mother, the girls remember when boys were more at ease in female surroundings.” According to Paley, this process of separation first began at the age of four: “The four-year-old boy is less comfortable in the doll corner than he was the year before; he may occasionally dress up in women’s clothes or agree to be Daddy, but the superhero clique has formed and the doll corner is becoming a women’s room.” The process is then completed by the age of five or six: “A boy in a frilly bedjacket expects to be laughed at,” whereas only a year or two earlier that same boy would have had no qualms about wearing feminine clothing.
Boys separate themselves from girls because they are taught that they are superior to girls. They pick up this attitude from their fathers and from older boys. This is why it is the boys who form a clique that excludes the girls long before the girls develop any clique of their own: “Boys set the tone and girls follow on parallel paths.”
Boys achieve their separate identity by defining themselves as what girls are not: “‘Here’s what I think,’ Charlotte states definitively. ‘They don’t want to be fancy because girls do. They just like to be not the same as us.'”
The boys who adhere to this male supremacist separation from femininity then pressure the remaining boys to fall into line. The children in Paley’s class take turns telling stories. Here is Teddy’s first story: “Once upon a time there was this little boy and his name was Pretty. They called him Pretty because he was so pretty. His name was really Hansel. There was this sister. He didn’t know he had a sister. The mother and father told him and then they had candy and then they went for a walk.”
Paley relates that the response of the other boys was “immediate and strong”:
Andrew, Jonathan, and Paul explode with laughter. “He calls him Pretty!” “Ugh!” “Pre-e-tty!”
“He can call him that if he wants,” Charlotte says.
“No he can’t!” shouts Andrew. “Not if he’s a boy he can’t.”
“It’s Teddy’s story,” I add. “He didn’t tell you what to say.”
Teddy is not insulted, only curious. He smiles at the boys, who continue to make faces. Teddy’s use of “pretty” crosses over into female territory, a subject he will learn about from boys, who care more about boundary lines than do the girls.
The boys care more about boundary lines than do the girls because the myths of male superiority are dependent on them. Boys must define themselves as different from girls before they can define themselves as superior.
If girls are good, then boys feel that they must be something other than good, just as they must be something other than fancy or pretty: “The children see girls as good and find it difficult to characterize boys”:
Karen: Girls are nicer than boys.
Janie: Boys are bad. Some boys are.
Paul: Not bad. Pretend bad, like bad guys.
Karen: My brother is really bad.
Teacher: Aren’t girls ever bad?
Paul: I don’t think so. Not very much.
Teacher: Why not?
Paul: Because they like to color so much. That’s one thing I know. Boys have to practice running.
Karen: And they practice being silly.
This same flight from the feminine came up again in connection with the doll known as Strawberry Shortcake:
Andrew: All the girls love Strawberry Shortcake now.
Teacher: I wonder why that is.
Andrew: They think she has a nice smell.
Teacher: Do you like that smell?
Andrew: Boys don’t like smells.
Teacher: Don’t like smells?
Andrew: I mean boys like bad smells. I mean dangerous smells. Like volcano smells.
Jonathan: Vampire smells.
Teacher: Well, Strawberry Shortcake doesn’t have to worry about volcanoes or vampires. The girls never put those things in their stories.
Teddy: Because vampires aren’t pretty. We like stuff that isn’t pretty, but not girls. They like only pretty things.
This is the same Teddy who earlier told the story about a boy named Pretty. Here he renounces that which is pretty, and we can see that the other boys have won him over.
The boys reinforce each other in their negative, anti-feminine behavior. This comes out clearly whenever the girls try to get boys to play house with them: “All the boys, even Andrew, will agree to a brief stint as father if they are alone when asked.
“The girls understand what turns a guest into an intruder: The magic number is 3. If one boy is summoned into the doll corner, he is likely to cooperate; two, in certain combinations, might still be manageable; three, never. Three boys form a superhero clique and disrupt play.”
When girls play house, they are playing at responsible, adult roles. When boys disrupt such play by wrecking things in the doll corner or running off with them, they are rejecting the role of responsible husband and father as something that is not for a real male. The girls are playing at being responsible, mature adults, and the boys are reacting by defining themselves as irresponsible.
Still, these young boys play at this destructive behavior only because they are with other boys. There is hope. If boys can be separated from each other and induced to play with girls, such negative behavior can be avoided.
This fact highlights the significance of the home as an educational institution over against the school. For in school it is not feasible to break up the superhero cliques and absorb the boys individually into girlish games, but something on this order can be done in the home.
This contrast between school and home comes out again in Paley’s description of the “near riot conditions” that emerged when Jonathan brought his Star Wars album to class for the Friday afternoon rhythm period: “Customarily a new record needs a brief introduction before we move with the music. Star Wars needs none; as soon as it is played, everyone immediately imitates a flying machine. Arms out, heads pressed forward, the children fly around the room. Suddenly the boys turn on one another, leaping and screaming, “You’re dead!” “I killed you first!” Robots run into spaceships, rockets destroy TIE fighters, storm troopers shoot at everyone. Each boy is fighting every other boy. Even Teddy is pulling someone down.”
Paley had the boys sit for a while and watch how the girls danced. But then when they rejoined the group, they started in just as before. The teacher finally gave up, had everyone lie down and read to them from Charlotte’s Web.
This is how the Star Wars album played at school, but at home it was a different story: “When I describe the scene later to Jonathan’s mother, she is surprised. ‘He’s so quiet at home when he listens to it.’ Of course, he doesn’t have twelve other boys at home.”
It is the presence of the other boys that makes it so difficult to control this sort of unacceptable behavior and limits the usefulness of the school for the socialization of young boys. Only the home can perform this function in an adequate way. If a boy thinks that he should be bad because girls are good, then the home is the place to work on changing his attitude. If a boy thinks that he should do poorly in school because girls do well, then it is in the home that he should be taught otherwise.
Cliques of boys encourage their members to engage in bad behavior. These cliques need to be broken up and the individual boys made to play with girls. They should be made to play the wholesome games that girls prefer, not the violent games that groups of boys go in for. Whatever games the girls want to play, the boys should be made to join them.
Boys can be made to spend more time with females in other ways too. They can spend time with their mothers and older sisters, going shopping together and learning something about fashion. A boy who is attached to his mother often gets put down as being a “mama’s boy,” but the fact is that mama’s boys are better behaved—they are more moral—than other boys. This is a good thing, and not (as the male supremacists try to tell us) a bad thing.
Boys in cliques grow up to be men in cliques, and these too need to be broken up. These cliques are hotbeds of negative attitudes toward women. The “night out with the boys” needs to be ended. Nor should husbands be allowed to stop off with their buddies at a bar after work. Husbands should do what their wives want them to, whether it be going dancing, joining a bridge club, or whatever. They could be with other men at these events, but that will be all right as long as married men’s social activities are completely under the control of women.
Date Posted: 17:03:08 05/01/16 Sun
In reply to: Julie Wilson ‘s message, “Why All Boys Need to be Petticoated” on 10:49:57 04/29/16 Fri
For every 20 criminals in our society, 19 are men while only one is a woman. There are some female criminals, but they are few and far between. Crime is overwhelmingly a male activity. This is the theme of an important new book, Men Are Not Cost-Effective, by June Stephenson.
Dr. Stephenson, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, marshals the evidence that shows how criminally destructive men can get. Of course, most men are not criminals, but crime costs some $300 billion per year, while women are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators.
Most of Dr. Stephenson’s 469-page book is taken up with the basic facts about male crime. She documents the rapid growth of male criminal activity and makes it clear that this growth has itself made the threat of prison a less effective deterrent because prison overcrowding has led to shorter sentences and early releases. Then these early releases lead to more crime, which exacerbates the problem of overcrowding.
Dr. Stephenson devotes her last chapter to a discussion of proposals for reducing male crime. Some of her proposals are for various reforms which have been suggested many times before, but she also has a few new twists based on her analysis of crime as a predominantly male phenomenon. One is a proposal designed to educate men about the male nature of the problem; she calls this “gender equity in taxation.”
“Many women pay for male crime with their lives,” she writes, “but all women taxpayers pay for male crime with their tax dollars.” Her proposal is that there be a substantial income tax deduction for being female; in this way women would not have to foot the tax bill for male crime. Such a policy would certainly be more fair than the present system, and just proposing gender tax equity would serve to educate men about the fundamentally male character of the crime problem. Of course, a lot of men are not going to like it, but bringing up the topic of tax equity for women should help men to come to see that women tend to be more emotionally mature and self-disciplined than they are and that it was time to start doing something about male immaturity.
The best thing to do about male immaturity is for men to accept the moral guidance of women in their lives. But Dr. Stephenson doesn’t propose that they do this. This is because she prefers to believe that there are no innate differences between men and women. If that were the case, then the only differences between the sexes would be due to differences in social conditioning.
A lot of feminists believe that there are no innate gender differences. In fact, this view is so widespread that it deserves to be called “the official party line.” These feminists have a reason for taking this position: they are afraid that if they admit that there are any innate differences between men and women, then the male supremacists will twist the facts around to try to prove that women should be kept in their traditional subordinate role. So these feminists just ignore the evidence for innate differences between the sexes.
The problem with this tactic is that most people are very much aware that there are such innate differences. So when feminists deny their existence, they end up looking more than a little silly. Well intentioned as it is, the tactic of pretending that all gender differences are merely cultural is not going to work in the long run.
On the other hand, writers like Dr. Stephenson are perfectly right when they say that a lot of the differences in behavior between men and women are due to cultural conditioning. Boys and girls are raised differently; they are given different role models, and this explains much of why men commit so many more crimes than women. So what does she propose to do about it?
Here her basic concept is androgyny. This means that every person has both a masculine side and a feminine side to their personality. Dr. Stephenson’s proposal is that we help boys to develop their feminine side: “We’re talking here about helping boys value and develop the feminine side of their personalities.” Since girls seldom grow up to engage in the destructive behavior that so many boys do, teaching boys to act like girls should cut down on the amount of crime. To the extent that male crime is due to social conditioning and does not derive from innate factors, the best thing we could do for boys would be to help them develop their potential for femininity.
Of course there will be resistance to such a proposal. As long as our society continues to view women as inferior to men, any effort to teach boys to be feminine will be condemned as degrading boys to the level of girls. Such efforts will be criticized as making “sissies” out of the boys. But here Dr. Stephenson asks: “aren’t ‘sissies’ better than murderers?”
The fact is that many parents tolerate a great deal in the way of potentially antisocial character traits in their sons because they believe that girls are inferior to boys and that therefore it is better to run the risk of the boys growing up to be criminals than to give them lessons in femininity. The results of these parents’ attitudes are reflected in the shocking crime statistics in Dr. Stephenson’s book.
June Stephenson has written an important and timely book. Our prisons are overcrowded, and the cost of law enforcement in this country continues to skyrocket. As the back cover of Dr. Stephenson’s book observes, “Men Are Bankrupting Our Country!”
Men Are Not Cost-Effective: Male Crime In America by June Stephenson, Ph.D. Diemer, Smith Publishing Company, Inc. 3377 Solano Avenue, Napa, California 94558. $18.00.
n reply to: Julie Wilson ‘s message, “Re: Why All Boys Need to be Petticoated” on 17:03:08 05/01/16 Sun
Ms. Wilson, I have to tell you that you are a very intelligent and insightful woman. You express your views clearly and distinctly and your opinions are beyond reproach in timeliness and common sense. I commend you for articulating what so many of us feel and believe to be the truth but have not been able to find the words or the courage to say it out loud. Thank you.
The feminizing of boys in the educational and domestic environment is a necessity for society to progress and even survive. I couldn’t agree with you more on this.
I have read an article, but am unable to provide you the source, that one of the ways to improve society and protect it from over aggressive males, is to use the tax system, as you or your author suggested. But the woman who wrote the article proposes that great reductions in taxation, at least temporarily, be offered to adult males who are no longer intact. It is the preponderance of testosterone which causes so much trouble for society. Reducing the amount of testosterone among males would be a great leap forward. She suggested that surgical castration no longer be demonized, but encouraged and even rewarded. It is a fairly simple and quick procedure, only slightly more complicated than a vasectomy, when carried out by qualified medical practitioners. Veterinarians perform successful castrations daily on a routine basis. Chemical castration, however, doesn’t work as well in reducing male violence because the medication can always be stopped and it would cost way too much to administer and monitor every male who was supposed to be receiving it. Surgery is the only sure way to permanently reduce violence by males. This would save so much money in police, prisons, courts, etc. and most of all save lives and make people safe, mainly women and children.
Rather than use the unpopular word ‘castration’, the procedure could be called ‘calming’, and as such promote a more positive connotation. It would be completely voluntary. She argued that many men would welcome the relief from the oppressive tension and frustration of excessive testosterone. A male requires no more testosterone to stay healthy that than the amount women have in their bodies. The money that would be saved by reducing male crime and violence could go to reward males that opted to have the procedure done. There would be funds available to create castration (or calming) clinics for men in numerous neighborhoods, much like abortion clinics for women. Not only could there be tax refunds, but also monitory gifts given by government and charitable organizations promoting such a program. There could be public advertising campaigns funded by government agencies, much along the lines of the ‘stop smoking’ campaigns. There would be many non-profit groups and societies, organized by supporting feminists and other concerned citizens, that would eagerly help the campaign. Volunteers would send out social media notices, make thousands of phone-calls, and set up information kiosks in every mall and public place to get the word out about how beneficial this program will be for everyone…man, woman, and child. Mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, work colleagues, grandmothers, aunts, teachers, neighbors will all begin to encourage the males in their influence to take this wonderful step for a better society. Men who volunteer to visit their friendly calming clinic will be supported and admired by appreciative family and friends. The nurses or receptionists at the clinic might even have a pin or button to give to every male completing the procedure to proudly wear for all to see, declaring something like:
I DID IT …and you can too!
Visit your nearest Calming Clinic and ask how.
Feminization would then be easy to invoke for the women of most of these males. Oh, what a wonderful world it would be!
In reply to: Richard ‘s message, “Re: Why All Boys Need to be Petticoated” on 13:48:31 05/02/16 Mon
While it certainly IS a dramatic step, and has side effects that need to be dealt with, castration does offer a few advantages, too. Neutered males become much more compliant, biddable, docile and obedient, as well as more amenable to feminization. If it were a convenient option, perhaps more women would choose it for their husbands, especially later in life, once the child-bearing years were past.
It should be a more acceptable option in today’s world. As more and more women become physicians, it will become more available.
Now that we have the Changes happening in Males…..Let’s keep supporting the GREAT things that Woman are Accomplishing!
And while Women like this are developing Strength…..More and more men are being skirted and feminized!
And as Women Take Control, and insist on men being Pretty…they will also need to put them to use!!! Isn’t it Great seeing how Strong Women are becoming, and how Submissive males are being?